FROM

We are arguing that courts must recognize [Tommy and Kiko] as ‘persons’
with the capacity for fundamental rights appropriate to the kind of beings
that evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human
experience unequivocally tell us they are.

Why rights?

This question was rightfully at the forefront of Tommy and Kiko’s appellate
hearing on March 16th and the media coverage surrounding it.

As many of you know, the hearing was a long time coming. Uncertainties as
to Tommy’s whereabouts delayed for months the filing of his appeal, while
the NhRP legal team fought for almost a year in the First Judicial
Department to affirm our absolute right to appeal in Kiko’s case.

That the Court decided to hear oral arguments in both cases on the same day
is ironic, perhaps, considering Tommy and Kiko are each held in captivity
alone, with no knowledge of the other or contact with other chimpanzees.

In the week leading up to the hearing, numerous media outlets reported on
the NhRP’s litigation with all the seriousness our clients’ situations are
due. For example, The Washington Post’s Animalia blog highlighted the
“revolutionary changes” the NhRP’s work could bring and detailed the
scientific evidence we brought before the Court to repudiate the Third
Judicial Department’s erroneous assumption (one of several) that chimpanzees
cannot bear duties and responsibilities.

The New York Law Journal took a look back at the history of how we
arrived at this hearing and why NhRP President Steven M. Wise decided to
argue for nonhuman animals’ personhood and rights in the first place: “They
were essentially being treated as slaves and I said ‘It looks like they need
a lawyer.’”

In a video interview with Salon, Steve emphasized the links between human
rights and nonhuman rights, human suffering and nonhuman animal suffering.
Autonomous beings like our clients suffer in solitary confinement just as
humans do, he said. How Tommy and Kiko are being treated in captivity is
beside the point because, as courts must recognize, holding them in
captivity is in itself a violation of their right to bodily liberty.

The Wall Street Journal, detailing their respective cases, referred to Tommy
and Kiko as “unlikely plaintiffs.” This is all too true. Even in 2017,
nonhuman animals seldom get their day in court.

Gizmodo got to the heart of why, whether we’re talking about humans,
nonhuman animals, or the environment, recognition of rights is important and
necessary, especially in this threatening political climate where we see how
easy it is to toss animal and environmental protection laws by the wayside:
“Rights are more difficult to erode.”

An article in the Associated Press brought to the fore what is, from our
point of view, the utter absurdity behind justifications for Tommy and Kiko
remaining in captivity. Kiko “could die without his family to give him the
special care he needs, and to bring him into the house to play,” Carmen
Presti said (apparently unaware that accredited sanctuaries offer medical
care and that a cage in a house in a residential area of upstate New York is
far from a suitable environment for a chimpanzee).

In an op-ed published by the New York Daily News on the day of the hearing,
Steve drove home the point that “we are arguing that courts must recognize
[Tommy and Kiko] as ‘persons’ with the capacity for fundamental rights
appropriate to the kind of beings that evolving standards of morality,
scientific discovery, and human experience unequivocally tell us they are.”

As for the hearing itself, overall we’re pleased the First Judicial
Department asked so many forceful questions, as we detail in our media
release, allowing us to address the erroneousness of the Third Judicial
Department’s Oct. 2015 ruling, including the dangerous precedent set by
linking rights to duties and responsibilities, as NBC News focused on in its
coverage.

We’ll know in five to eight weeks whether the First Judicial Department will
be first US court to change Tommy and Kiko’s legal status on the basis of
their proven autonomy (a supreme common law value). Either way, the fight
for nonhuman rights will be far from over.

For this reason and so many others, it was amazing (but not surprising) to
see how many people took the time to show their support for Tommy and Kiko’s
bid for freedom, both online and in person at the hearing. Clearly, “why
rights?” is a question you don’t hesitate to answer with compassion and
confidence.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.